[QUOTE=Levelog;48331437]Last mile unbundling =/= common carrier. ISP's do still not have to unbundle last mile to common carriers.[/QUOTE]
That's true, and that's something Google's been complaining about -- which, [I]hopefully[/I], will be rolled out in Title II. I say hopefully because I haven't read the FCC's rules yet and I don't know if they've yet voted on and published them.
It's convention for the FCC to not publish policies and rules changes until after the internal vote has been processed--this keeps it from becoming a political shitshow the way a typical bill passage in Congress goes, before anyone freaks out. I'm not sure if the FCC's vote has happened yet, since at least some of the big ISPs went straight ahead with suing the FCC to stop Title II reclassification before the rules were even voted on. I'm a [I]bit[/I] out of the loop on that news.
Personally I want FCC to have way more authority that they already have.
They seem to be the only organization out there that's actually on the consumer's side. I'm pretty glad they have the authority to call bullshit on fraudulent actions by shitty companies.
My experience with AT&T in the States was fun. Their call quality is awful and I never had more than 2-3 bars of "4G" or 1 bar of LTE. The 3G speeds I get in the middle of nowhere in Latvia are 2x faster than LTE from AT&T.
[QUOTE=strazyyy;48331654]My experience with AT&T in the States was fun. Their call quality is awful and I never had more than 2-3 bars of "4G" or 1 bar of LTE. The 3G speeds I get in the middle of nowhere in Latvia are 2x faster than LTE from AT&T.[/QUOTE]
Latvia is so small you physically can't get to middle of nowhere. There is no such place here.
high speed internet is a human right and should be out of their hands anyway
They should just pull a "oh you don't want to pay the 100m that we fined you? Fine! 200m!"
[QUOTE=cqbcat;48328657]Quit being so whiny. You make so much money, 100 mil is chump change to you.[/QUOTE]
It's about the precedent, if they acknowledge they did wrong here, they can't do it anymore, and they'll be weaker in future lawsuits as well. So they're going to fight this, probably spend more than the fine's worth on lawyers, and hope they win so they can continue screwing people in every way imaginable.
American ISPs need to be fucking burnt down so we can start over and make sure they can't screw us the next time around.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;48333068]American ISPs need to be fucking burnt down so we can start over and make sure they can't screw us the next time around.[/QUOTE]
Everything just needs to go municipal or county fiber imo.
What do you expect? AT&T is made up of a bunch of Bell ends.
To add more substance, I think they'd end up owing more than $100M if they were thoroughly investigated and forced to repay misappropriated federal money.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48332932]It's about the precedent, if they acknowledge they did wrong here, they can't do it anymore, and they'll be weaker in future lawsuits as well. So they're going to fight this, probably spend more than the fine's worth on lawyers, and hope they win so they can continue screwing people in every way imaginable.[/QUOTE]
$100M in legal costs is a high bar to reach. That's a team of 10 lawyers working 80 hours a week nonstop for nearly 5 years at $500/hour. Each one would walk away with $2M a year. I think they're just doing this because it's going to be cheaper.
I bet this would work. The FCC applies Title II, and then executes the following in the guise of assisting the ISPs with adapting to the Title II regs and the new 25Mbps-is-broadband rules:
[QUOTE=GunFox;47037360]Offer the major ISP companies a cash payout up front from the federal government to upgrade the internet infrastructure significantly.
They will accept the cash and then, as they have in the past, not actually follow through. Then we nationalize every fucking inch of any ISP that took the cash and allow ISP's to utilize the infrastructure for a relatively small fee or even nothing provided they update and maintain the network.[/QUOTE]
[I]-micdrop-[/I]
Fine them up the ass, FCC. I can't watch a single fucking video because it takes 5 minutes to buffer 2 seconds. They deserve all the penalties they can get with their shitty """""high speed"""" internet.
[QUOTE=Sombrero;48336288]Fine them up the ass, FCC. I can't watch a single fucking video because it takes 5 minutes to buffer 2 seconds. They deserve all the penalties they can get with their shitty """""high speed"""" internet.[/QUOTE]
Registered to say that after dealing with Comcast for basically since I've ever had internet access I was tired of their shitty customer service and shit in general so I called up AT&T. These guys told me verbatim: Our internet is better than Comcast in every way, of course. Your internet with Comcast is shared, with ours, it's dedicated and you'll notice an immense difference after switching from Comcast to us.
I wasn't even having that bad of internet speed with Comcast, but in my area there were fairly regular down times which were getting a bit annoying, and after a three day down period with no fix until the weekend's end, I ended up making the switch. At first I thought it was going great, until I started using the internet as I usually do, habitually. I've started to notice a lot of patterns or symptoms that I've only come across since "upgrading" to U-Verse. I'd also like to mention that I got the highest speed they offer besides gbps fiber internets, like 200mbps.
Almost everyday Youtube refuses to load any video thumbnails whatsoever, sometimes trying to type in URLs just hangs, and I have to go to google.com then search the name of the website, then click the google search link result. Sometimes websites just refuse to load no matter what, just a lot of weird shit. Like some arbitrary elements on a website just won't load properly unless, as I've come to conclusion, "it wants to." So I just pray each day that the internet AT&T provides will be lenient with me and not give me too many problems.
I've read reviews, after the purchase, that AT&T is devoting most of their resources into their real fiber internet services, not available in my area, and their other options are getting a 'cold shoulder.' o well
Ironically, I might end up back with Comcast since I believe they're working on bringing gbps internet to my state. kinda annoyed too, I've been with Comcast for over a decade I should have just stayed with them until then to feel like I have seniority or something, taking into account how AT&T "High Speed U-Verse Internet" is turning out.
I hope the FCC starts cracking down big time and we start seeing results.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48337118]I hope the FCC starts cracking down big time and we start seeing results.[/QUOTE]
I hope the FCC goes after the infrastructure subsidies next, they shouldn't be making a 97% profit margin on internet infrastructure, and they certainly shouldn't be collecting federal subsidies if they continue doing so and not upgrading their networks, the government should prosecute these companies for failure to meet performance milestones, if they don't take the money they can do as they please but if they do then we have a right to expect improvements and buildout
[QUOTE=I'm A Ho;48336972]Registered to say that after dealing with Comcast for basically since I've ever had internet access I was tired of their shitty customer service and shit in general so I called up AT&T. These guys told me verbatim: Our internet is better than Comcast in every way, of course. Your internet with Comcast is shared, with ours, it's dedicated and you'll notice an immense difference after switching from Comcast to us.
I wasn't even having that bad of internet speed with Comcast, but in my area there were fairly regular down times which were getting a bit annoying, and after a three day down period with no fix until the weekend's end, I ended up making the switch. At first I thought it was going great, until I started using the internet as I usually do, habitually. I've started to notice a lot of patterns or symptoms that I've only come across since "upgrading" to U-Verse. I'd also like to mention that I got the highest speed they offer besides gbps fiber internets, like 200mbps.
Almost everyday Youtube refuses to load any video thumbnails whatsoever, sometimes trying to type in URLs just hangs, and I have to go to google.com then search the name of the website, then click the google search link result. Sometimes websites just refuse to load no matter what, just a lot of weird shit. Like some arbitrary elements on a website just won't load properly unless, as I've come to conclusion, "it wants to." So I just pray each day that the internet AT&T provides will be lenient with me and not give me too many problems.
I've read reviews, after the purchase, that AT&T is devoting most of their resources into their real fiber internet services, not available in my area, and their other options are getting a 'cold shoulder.' o well
Ironically, I might end up back with Comcast since I believe they're working on bringing gbps internet to my state. kinda annoyed too, I've been with Comcast for over a decade I should have just stayed with them until then to feel like I have seniority or something, taking into account how AT&T "High Speed U-Verse Internet" is turning out.[/QUOTE]
What this sounds like is that the DNS that AT&T is giving you is shit. Websites and images taking forever to load while the internet seems fine otherwise is a common sign of a shit DNS. It has nothing to do with bandwidth and it should be an easy fix if they know what's going on. Unfortunately since the big Internet provider's customer service is so abysmal there's probably no hope of getting that fixed because anyone you call will have no communication whatsoever with someone who could actually fix something.
If the DNS is OUTRAGEOUSLY shitty, you may end up with your browser outright bringing up the wrong website a lot of the time (I've had this happen before).
It could also be an upload speed problem. Check your upload speed with Speedtest.net. If your upload speed and download speed are fine, it's definitely your DNS.
I suppose calling them is worth a try. Just let them know that your download speed is fine, but it takes a long time for websites to load and sometimes images don't load at all, and that this is probably a DNS issue. You can also try using Google DNS
[url]https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/?hl=en[/url]
but sometimes ISPs make it so that the DNS they give you overwrites the DNS you try to use, so it might not make a difference.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48340454]What this sounds like is that the DNS that AT&T is giving you is shit. Websites and images taking forever to load while the internet seems fine otherwise is a common sign of a shit DNS. It has nothing to do with bandwidth and it should be an easy fix if they know what's going on. Unfortunately since the big Internet provider's customer service is so abysmal there's probably no hope of getting that fixed because anyone you call will have no communication whatsoever with someone who could actually fix something.
If the DNS is OUTRAGEOUSLY shitty, you may end up with your browser outright bringing up the wrong website a lot of the time (I've had this happen before).
It could also be an upload speed problem. Check your upload speed with Speedtest.net. If your upload speed and download speed are fine, it's definitely your DNS.
I suppose calling them is worth a try. Just let them know that your download speed is fine, but it takes a long time for websites to load and sometimes images don't load at all, and that this is probably a DNS issue. You can also try using Google DNS
[url]https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/?hl=en[/url]
but sometimes ISPs make it so that the DNS they give you overwrites the DNS you try to use, so it might not make a difference.[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this out. I followed your advice and looked over the speed test, everything appeared fine. I called and asked about what you described in regards to the DNS and after some back and forth troubleshooting they were able to, as far as I can tell, resolve essentially everything I was 'dealing' with. Thanks again.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48340454]You can also try using Google DNS
[url]https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/?hl=en[/url]
but sometimes ISPs make it so that the DNS they give you overwrites the DNS you try to use, so it might not make a difference.[/QUOTE]
You should be able to do a [url=https://www.dnsleaktest.com]standard DNS leak test[/url] to confirm which servers you're using.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48340235]they shouldn't be making a 97% profit margin on internet infrastructure[/QUOTE]
Wanna source that? Because I'm pretty sure they don't.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48346758]Wanna source that? Because I'm pretty sure they don't.[/QUOTE]
Even if they do. They make that much off of it because local governments make it all but impossible to put down new infrastructure. Google spoke in front of congress on that very topic. It was extremely difficult for them to build their fiber network because of all the regulator red tape.
In effect, it's a government created monopoly.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48346758]Wanna source that? Because I'm pretty sure they don't.[/QUOTE]
They don't, there was a thread a while back (I think you commented on it?) proclaiming some clickbait title about how Time Warner has a 97% profit margin, when it was really just the gross margin on Internet service and not their actual profit, and taking operating and infrastructure costs into account put their profit margin at the typical 10-15% of most businesses.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
But facts never get in the way of the anti-ISP circlejerk so the 97% figure keeps coming up
[QUOTE=catbarf;48351027]They don't, there was a thread a while back (I think you commented on it?) proclaiming some clickbait title about how Time Warner has a 97% profit margin, when it was really just the gross margin on Internet service and not their actual profit, and taking operating and infrastructure costs into account put their profit margin at the typical 10-15% of most businesses.[/QUOTE]
Good memory, I did but couldn't find the post so I was just going to debunk whatever source they replied with. :eng101s:
[QUOTE=catbarf;48351027]They don't, there was a thread a while back (I think you commented on it?) proclaiming some clickbait title about how Time Warner has a 97% profit margin, when it was really just the gross margin on Internet service and not their actual profit, and taking operating and infrastructure costs into account put their profit margin at the typical 10-15% of most businesses.
[editline]2nd August 2015[/editline]
But facts never get in the way of the anti-ISP circlejerk so the 97% figure keeps coming up[/QUOTE]
Pretty much, I was too lazy to find the old thread but I hate it when people bring up the BS 97% figure. I think the highest profit margin of any company is some pharma company and it's in the 50's.
If you think the US telecommunication industry is anti-competitive, you have no idea how bad it is in Canada.
[QUOTE=wanksta11;48352533]If you think the US telecommunication industry is anti-competitive, you have no idea how bad it is in Canada.[/QUOTE]
In a lot of places, even state capitals, there's only one provider total. We only get AT&T until Cox finally comes next month. Even then, it's two shitty providers.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48350969]Even if they do. They make that much off of it because local governments make it all but impossible to put down new infrastructure. Google spoke in front of congress on that very topic. It was extremely difficult for them to build their fiber network because of all the regulator red tape.
In effect, it's a government created monopoly.[/QUOTE]
Its not a government created monopoly. Its the government's unease to use eminent domain on lands.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48357222]Its not a government created monopoly. Its the government's unease to use eminent domain on lands.[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with eminent domain. New providers can use the same underground channels and/or above ground electric poles for new infrastructure, but local governments and utilities often charge ridiculously expensive fees to do so, if they let them use them at all.
Google execs have made multiple speeches about the problems they ran into when trying to build their new fiber networks. One of the main reasons they chose the places they did was because those cities, like Kansas City, allowed them to move forward without all the normal regulation. Here's a speech that the Google's vice president overseeing the fiber network implementation made before congress about this very topic: [url]http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TestimonyofMiloMedin_1.pdf[/url]
My question is, do they Throttle the entire connection, or just connections to certain sites?
[QUOTE=Timof2009;48359534]My question is, do they Throttle the entire connection, or just connections to certain sites?[/QUOTE]
Both, they'll throttle the whole connection after you hit a cap that you have no idea what it is, and then for the "high bandwidth, it's killing our infrastructure" sites like YouTube or Netflix, they throttle them all the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.